I'll be offended by this when all of you guys get offended by CoD, MoH, GTA and every other game where you shoot people, and drive over old ladies in the street.
Inside the Sick Mind of a School Shooter Mod
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Just going to skip all the nitpicking and this and that and say... mod approved.
"Pawnstick's mod, while being disgusting in its own right, will do nothing but give ammunition to anti-game activists, joining the ranks of Postal 2 and Manhunt as examples of gaming's moral depravity."
Those ranks once included, and to a small part still do, Dungeons & Dragons. Easily the badass grandmama of all fantasy. So who cares what the media says, they'll always find something bad.
"Pawnstick's mod, while being disgusting in its own right, will do nothing but give ammunition to anti-game activists, joining the ranks of Postal 2 and Manhunt as examples of gaming's moral depravity."
Those ranks once included, and to a small part still do, Dungeons & Dragons. Easily the badass grandmama of all fantasy. So who cares what the media says, they'll always find something bad.
This is fucking dumb. while i usually complain about not being able to kill children in games like fable 2, i disapprove of this. why? its just fodder for morons like that one dumbass at fox news.
This looks like a dangerous experiment to me. He's articulate but foolish. He doesn't seem to appreciate at all how extremely offesive his game will be to victims. He draws a comparison to an imaginary person who may complain about war game, but in a war game you are solider fighting for your country, and when you shoot an enemy solider, he is not like someone in your life. Buddy's game has you run around killing people like the victims for fun. That is not even close to a good comparison.
He also appears to have this idea that i've seen other people talking about as well; that playing these is a way a to 'satisfy' a person who may have been at risk of acutally attacking people. I think I remember the opposite of this idea being diss-proven, but i don't remember this idea itself being shown as correct. Has he seen some study that recomends violent games to all who are violent? I could be wrong, but i don't think i've seen a study that ever supported the 'satisfaction theory', as i will call it.
It looks to me like hes going ahead with this game on some bad assumptions. In most cases people who go on a shooting rampage are crazy and will go off on a random reason to attack, but what if his game causes a sane person to go on an attack? He seems pretty sure that a real psycho has to be crazy, but when we look at the different reactions to this game alone, it can make you feel all kinds of emotion. How different can the thoughts of others be before they are mentally unstable. What if someone cold plays this game, and he likes the philosphy of it? A game doesn't need a cut-scene to have a story, buddy.
I think this game is reckless and should be stopped. the concept is too dark to have just one man behind it who will ignore all emotion and reasoning from the many people concerned about it.
He also appears to have this idea that i've seen other people talking about as well; that playing these is a way a to 'satisfy' a person who may have been at risk of acutally attacking people. I think I remember the opposite of this idea being diss-proven, but i don't remember this idea itself being shown as correct. Has he seen some study that recomends violent games to all who are violent? I could be wrong, but i don't think i've seen a study that ever supported the 'satisfaction theory', as i will call it.
It looks to me like hes going ahead with this game on some bad assumptions. In most cases people who go on a shooting rampage are crazy and will go off on a random reason to attack, but what if his game causes a sane person to go on an attack? He seems pretty sure that a real psycho has to be crazy, but when we look at the different reactions to this game alone, it can make you feel all kinds of emotion. How different can the thoughts of others be before they are mentally unstable. What if someone cold plays this game, and he likes the philosphy of it? A game doesn't need a cut-scene to have a story, buddy.
I think this game is reckless and should be stopped. the concept is too dark to have just one man behind it who will ignore all emotion and reasoning from the many people concerned about it.
I really do not see how his quoted statements shows his abilitiy to reflect on his actions.tzimize said:
He states that there are real world problems to be offended about, and thus people should not be offended about fictional entities.
This is an extremely simplistic black-and-white dichotomy, which does impley a strong opinion about something, but not reflection or empathy.
However, I was not actually refering to this part of the interview anyway.
While I personally DO believe that it is legimate to be offended by certain works of art, I do not think that is reason to take down said art.
What in my mind shows his lack of reflection are statements like
"The media is right to dismiss games as "bang-bang shoot 'em ups" and "murder simulators," because at their core, that is exactly what most games boil down to. "
"Gamers are a generally misguided, highly reactionary lot."
Do you honestly think these are statements made by somewhat who regularly reflexts on his own believes, i.e. considers the possibility that they are wrong ?
I completely disagree with the position of saying you should or shouldn't make something just because it gives "ammo" to protesters. Someone that has a hate issue against what you are doing is going to find their own ammo no matter what you do so, personally, I think the best thing to do is to just ignore them altogether. For 10 years of my life I taught martial arts to teenagers and I study the ancient arts of the Shinobi. I doubt I need to tell anyone that MANY of the techniques I learned and taught were "killing" techniques. Basically ways to kill a person at the end of the form. Many parents were hateful towards me because of this but if I removed these movements from my forms what would that really accomplish? The parents would feel proven in their hate and they would probably because hateful towards other forms of martial arts as well. I know that some of my students have moved on to create more effective, non-lethal self defense forms on their own based on the ancient lethal forms I taught them. So, in the end, I think this is really about free speech and the right to be creative in your own way. If you don't like it, don't play it. Oh, and, just for the record, I loved Postal 2. It was a LOT of fun.
No. Greg, no. Don't tell me what to think and what to believe. The title of the article screams "OMG THIS GAEM IS SICK!" like every other judgemental, sensationalist headline you might see on British tabloids or Fox News. That might be the opinion of the author, but I, as a reader, do not give even a fraction of a flying fuck about that.
Personally, I have some appreciation this game for its audacity and willingness to push the boundaries. This falls into the same category as the most disturbing movies and literature. It's no worse, though, and the world would certainly be a less interesting place without them. If you don't like them, stay away, and let the people who appreciate it alone.
But yes, I do think it's kind of sick. That is not for you to decide for me. Don't tell me what to believe, that it's sick and horrible and wrong and that the concept of the game is horrible.
Fox News. They do the same thing as you are, albeit with things that we as a gaming community might not think are so bad, like GTA. If you move down the morality scale a bit, then you slamming this game might piss people from the... uh, the school shooting community off. They don't think it's so bad.
Of course, society needs to draw the line somewhere, but why can't that line be at "Don't actually go and shoot up a school"? Games such as this may be disturbing and appalling to the majority of people who hear about it, but it's not doing any real harm other than making some more sensitive people upset.
If this game caused people who play it to go and actually shoot up a school, that would be real harm. But it won't. School shooters might play this game the same way they (along with many others of sound mind) listen to KMFDM or play Doom. The music or the games themselves aren't the cause, the real root, of the problems.
Besides, is this any worse than the Columbine or V-Tech games? Every time someone makes a game like this, they know they'll instantly receive a shitstorm of publicity. And all publicity is good publicity. Perhaps if you, personally, don't like this game, you might want to consider refraining from writing an article about it so less people hear about this game.
In fact, your article was the first time I've heard about this new game. I might go play it, I've already downloaded Half-Life 2, and I'm someone willing to give everything a try. Well, as long as it doesn't take up too much bandwidth.
-----
The author of the game does have a point in some ways. I'm pretty sure he might just want to cause drama and get attention, for the lulz. Maybe. But... yeah, Super Columbine Massacre RPG was pretty boring in terms of gameplay.
Maybe Valve will decide this shit is dirtying their image and put their foot down. I wouldn't be surprised.
...also how do you shoot yourself if you have no ammo left ._.
Personally, I have some appreciation this game for its audacity and willingness to push the boundaries. This falls into the same category as the most disturbing movies and literature. It's no worse, though, and the world would certainly be a less interesting place without them. If you don't like them, stay away, and let the people who appreciate it alone.
But yes, I do think it's kind of sick. That is not for you to decide for me. Don't tell me what to believe, that it's sick and horrible and wrong and that the concept of the game is horrible.
Fox News. They do the same thing as you are, albeit with things that we as a gaming community might not think are so bad, like GTA. If you move down the morality scale a bit, then you slamming this game might piss people from the... uh, the school shooting community off. They don't think it's so bad.
Of course, society needs to draw the line somewhere, but why can't that line be at "Don't actually go and shoot up a school"? Games such as this may be disturbing and appalling to the majority of people who hear about it, but it's not doing any real harm other than making some more sensitive people upset.
If this game caused people who play it to go and actually shoot up a school, that would be real harm. But it won't. School shooters might play this game the same way they (along with many others of sound mind) listen to KMFDM or play Doom. The music or the games themselves aren't the cause, the real root, of the problems.
Besides, is this any worse than the Columbine or V-Tech games? Every time someone makes a game like this, they know they'll instantly receive a shitstorm of publicity. And all publicity is good publicity. Perhaps if you, personally, don't like this game, you might want to consider refraining from writing an article about it so less people hear about this game.
In fact, your article was the first time I've heard about this new game. I might go play it, I've already downloaded Half-Life 2, and I'm someone willing to give everything a try. Well, as long as it doesn't take up too much bandwidth.
-----
The author of the game does have a point in some ways. I'm pretty sure he might just want to cause drama and get attention, for the lulz. Maybe. But... yeah, Super Columbine Massacre RPG was pretty boring in terms of gameplay.
Maybe Valve will decide this shit is dirtying their image and put their foot down. I wouldn't be surprised.
...also how do you shoot yourself if you have no ammo left ._.
You forget that the german soldiers in these games can shoot back. The point of WW2 shooters is to go into a warzone and fight for a team. The point of this mod is to go into a peaceful school and murder the students, Slight difference. You really are an interesting example if you honestly can't grasp the difference.EcoEclipse said:
TheMaddestHatter said:
Ah yeah, the predictable "but they have guns!" argument.GrizzlerBorno said:
Here's the shocking bit of truth though: As far as your psychological functioning is concerned, it doesn't matter. You're still killing people for fun. Hell, there is absolutely no justification for the level of wanton sadism and violence in those games. If any military or police officer in the world was caught doing this, they would get soooo much shit for it, they'd probably never see the outside of a cell again, if they didn't get the chair. Overkill is never justified.
If someone's coming at you with a knife and you shoot them once or twice to take them down, that's justified self defense. If someone's coming at you with a knife, and you shoot them in each knee cap, then proceed to force feed them a live grenade before shooting them in the scrotum, so he bites the grenade, then set the corpse on fire and impale it on spikes... That's not self defense. That's murder of the highest degree. Self-defense is using just the necessary amount of violence, be it deadly or not, to defend yourself.
Another extremely important element in "murder" is one that also doesn't exist in self-defense: Pre-meditation. In a self-defense situation you're forced to act a certain way to defend yourself. You didn't go in expecting to do it, it just happened. If you force the situation yourself, it's not self-defense. You can never argue self-defense over a videogame because you put in the disk, or load up the game, conscious and unequivocal of what you're about to do. And that's exactly why you do it. You want to murder people. NOBODY is playing Bulletstorm unaware that they have to kill people, and absolutely no one is playing Bulletstorm for anything else than the unapologetic cathartic mass murder. You can't claim self-defense if you put yourself in that situation, in fact you paid for it, could walk away from it at ANY time but didn't. You're not there to defend yourself, you're there to kill anything that moves, and have the most fun you can with it.
Murder is murder. The only difference between Bulletstorm and this mod is that this mod is straight forward about it. Hell, I'd argue Bulletstorm is far more "dangerous" in the sense that not only "hides" it's true sadism under the pretense of "fighting armed forces!" but it actually rewards you for getting creative with your murder.
Have you never used god-mode in a war game or found an exploit where the ai is unable to respond - or just to thick to, ever been driving a tank (or any other vhicle) and come accross a group of soldiers you know don't have the capability to hurt you. I don't know about you but I I have played countless wargames and those moments still have the capacity to make me giggle a little as I mow them down.Laurie Barnes said:
Or the flip side, are you saying if all the children were armed you'd have no problem with the game?
Greg,Greg Tito said:
I'm not offended by this game. I see nothing wrong with it, in the same way that I (and you) see nothing wrong with games like GTA or MW2. In the same week that Extra Credits shakes a finger at EA for succumbing and removing the Taliban from Medal of Honor, it's sad to see you do exactly the opposite.
I think you crossed the line of game journalism and took this subject too personal (the title "Inside the Sick Mind" is a clear indication). Having read through the article I think of Pawnstick as an intelligent person who's clearly though of what he is doing, and in what ways he is (and isn't) responsible for his creation.
So it's healthy entertainment to shoot civilians in a Russian airport, but it's psychotic to shoot civilians in an American school? It's like saying it's OK to make jokes about the Holocaust, but not about 9/11.
It's your job to report news, not to judge it.
His reasoning is pretty broken. If games aren't "meant to be deep and insightful", then why would you set it in a school with authentic weapons? Doesn't that evoke some pretty specific, dead serious issues? And it's pretty blithe to assume that "the media gets it" now and blanket anti-gaming sentiments are a thing of the past; he says it's "not his place" to tell people how to live, but the thing is, as an artist and producer of media he still is telling people how to live, whether he wants to or not. He's validating apathy and sadism and disrespect for gaming.
We can only really conclude one of two things: that he's just childishly trying to be provocative for its own sake, or he's indulging a fantasy of murdering innocents (he obviously has a lot more sympathy for school shooters than he does for their victims). While censorship is bad, trying to make school shootings "fun" is not a worthy cause. The reason we eschew censorship is that censoring art suppresses the important meanings and messages is carries, and this guy has very bluntly stated that he doesn't want to make any point beyond "Games are stupid, provocative violence." This is basically Yahtzee's Bread Submarine: just because you can do something doesn't justify or validate doing it.
He is fair to say that this isn't going to provoke violence - people who do this sort of thing in real life are driven by something much deeper than playing a game. He still has the right to make this game, but I think he also has the right to be vilified for it.
I mean, I feel like he's already lost this argument in advance by taking the time to make such an unnecessary, stupid, morally-stunted product.
We can only really conclude one of two things: that he's just childishly trying to be provocative for its own sake, or he's indulging a fantasy of murdering innocents (he obviously has a lot more sympathy for school shooters than he does for their victims). While censorship is bad, trying to make school shootings "fun" is not a worthy cause. The reason we eschew censorship is that censoring art suppresses the important meanings and messages is carries, and this guy has very bluntly stated that he doesn't want to make any point beyond "Games are stupid, provocative violence." This is basically Yahtzee's Bread Submarine: just because you can do something doesn't justify or validate doing it.
He is fair to say that this isn't going to provoke violence - people who do this sort of thing in real life are driven by something much deeper than playing a game. He still has the right to make this game, but I think he also has the right to be vilified for it.
I mean, I feel like he's already lost this argument in advance by taking the time to make such an unnecessary, stupid, morally-stunted product.
What an asshole. This guy, (and his friends), are assholes because there are plenty of ways to express yourself in the medium without utilizing this variety of yellow-dog BS. If you're just trying to create a game like Painkiller or Bulletstorm where the active task is to destroy NPCs (armed or unarmed), why not make the NPCs innocuous green alien bunnies or something? The author of the mod even said that the maps have no relationship to actual schools, and any similarity to actual schools is an accident. So why not green alien bunnies in a forest of twisting and turning corridors? Why a school? Shock value. Plain and simple. This guy and his buddies are assholes because they choose to create content based on a series of terrible tragedies in our country, then attempt to defend their choice of content under the weak-ass banner of "we are just trying to serve an underserved portion of the gaming community." You, and your friends, are all assholes buddy.
As a teacher I am 100% behind this game because it's not just students who have homocidal tendencies towards students.
How will pointless childishness that completely validates the public's worst fears about what gamers are like result in games "being taken seriously"?Popido said:
Ed: Oh wait. Sarcasm. Headdesk.
